Overview:
Dan Waber’s “Strings” is a Flash-oriented text that reexamines the fading connection between the rapidly-becoming archaic art of cursive and the contemporary fidelity to digital code. The use of “handwritten” scrip suggests a reconnection of the human in literature, despite it being performed through a machine.
Textual Features:
-----Words appear often one at a time and sometimes in pairs.
-------------------------Words reference “subjects” of discourse
-----------------------for example: an argument: the words “Yes” and “No” oscillate
------Display of words mirror their signified intent
------Some screens are easier to read than others
--------------for example: in the subject “flirt” the word can almost be made out
-----------flirtatious in nature
-------Sometimes images are replaced with symbols
---------------for example: in “arms” the potential word “encircle” is represented with a circle
--------Narrative seems to focus on language as a medium of human interaction.
---------------there are a number of tender moments
--------Words reflect the discourse of the title subject.
--------cursive: penmanship is important
Media Features:
------Basic Flash
------Kinetic word movement
------Black text on white background
------Hyperlink to next subject
------Linear in fashion
------Handwritten, pen-like feel
Reading Experience:
With the exception of “Flirt” where the text is near illegible, the text and narration of this piece is relatively simple to absorb, perhaps mirroring the simplicity of Waber’s idea: of language as an important component to human interaction. The reader does little to move the action along, save for clicking to move to the next subject, and the presentation of the text will not vary between readers. Though the entire textual experience is short, an interpretation of the work lingers.
Analysis and Interpretation:
Literature, in using language as its vessel of expression, is innately communicative. However, with Digital Literature (nee Postmodernist, nee Deconstructionist, nee Modernist), the emphasis on language as a direct mode of communication (that is, that Saussure’s signifiers correspond to signifieds) is strained and often discredited; certainly, it is disoriented. To some degree, it seems Waber is reorienting words to their communicative past. Using code, he links words to their agency as methods by which humans communicate. There is an assertion in the text that suggests human interaction is in some way dependent on communication, invoking the old maxim that communication is key to a successful relationship.
Though, at first, it may seem the subjects are random or disjointed (perhaps a string of separate concepts), an overarching narrative develops. The narrative starts with an argument that leads to flirtation, laughter, and an embrace. With “You and Me,” there is even a suggestion of the separate speeds of a “couple’s” lives: the “Me” traveling quickly and erratically while the “You” ambles slowly along. Taken as a whole, the piece seems to situate language as an important functionary of human relationships.
Finally, though the hand is never seen because the text is written in script, presumably by a pen, it is suggested that a human is writing the text, reestablishing the human aspect of literature that may be jeopardized by the use of machines.
Overview:
Dan Waber’s “Strings” is a Flash-oriented text that reexamines the fading connection between the rapidly-becoming archaic art of cursive and the contemporary fidelity to digital code. The use of “handwritten” scrip suggests a reconnection of the human in literature, despite it being performed through a machine.
Textual Features:
-----Words appear often one at a time and sometimes in pairs.
-------------------------Words reference “subjects” of discourse
-----------------------for example: an argument: the words “Yes” and “No” oscillate
------Display of words mirror their signified intent
------Some screens are easier to read than others
--------------for example: in the subject “flirt” the word can almost be made out
-----------flirtatious in nature
-------Sometimes images are replaced with symbols
---------------for example: in “arms” the potential word “encircle” is represented with a circle
--------Narrative seems to focus on language as a medium of human interaction.
---------------there are a number of tender moments
--------Words reflect the discourse of the title subject.
--------cursive: penmanship is important
Media Features:
------Basic Flash
------Kinetic word movement
------Black text on white background
------Hyperlink to next subject
------Linear in fashion
------Handwritten, pen-like feel
Reading Experience:
With the exception of “Flirt” where the text is near illegible, the text and narration of this piece is relatively simple to absorb, perhaps mirroring the simplicity of Waber’s idea: of language as an important component to human interaction. The reader does little to move the action along, save for clicking to move to the next subject, and the presentation of the text will not vary between readers. Though the entire textual experience is short, an interpretation of the work lingers.
Analysis and Interpretation:
Literature, in using language as its vessel of expression, is innately communicative. However, with Digital Literature (nee Postmodernist, nee Deconstructionist, nee Modernist), the emphasis on language as a direct mode of communication (that is, that Saussure’s signifiers correspond to signifieds) is strained and often discredited; certainly, it is disoriented. To some degree, it seems Waber is reorienting words to their communicative past. Using code, he links words to their agency as methods by which humans communicate. There is an assertion in the text that suggests human interaction is in some way dependent on communication, invoking the old maxim that communication is key to a successful relationship.
Though, at first, it may seem the subjects are random or disjointed (perhaps a string of separate concepts), an overarching narrative develops. The narrative starts with an argument that leads to flirtation, laughter, and an embrace. With “You and Me,” there is even a suggestion of the separate speeds of a “couple’s” lives: the “Me” traveling quickly and erratically while the “You” ambles slowly along. Taken as a whole, the piece seems to situate language as an important functionary of human relationships.
Finally, though the hand is never seen because the text is written in script, presumably by a pen, it is suggested that a human is writing the text, reestablishing the human aspect of literature that may be jeopardized by the use of machines.